Imagine you
are an ordinary citizen of some Asian country – say, China – and
you hear a news report of the American president’s recent remarks
to the East Asia Summit, during which he argued:

“While
we are not a claimant in the South China Sea dispute, and while we do
not take sides, we have a powerful stake in maritime security in general,
and in the resolution of the South China Sea issue specifically
— as a resident Pacific power, as a maritime nation, as a trading
nation and as a guarantor of security in the Asia Pacific region.”

Remember, you’re
Chinese, or maybe Indonesian, not American, and you’re wondering:
does every “maritime nation” have the right to stake its
claim in the South China Sea – or is only the US accorded this privilege?
Every country on earth – even North Korea – could be credibly described
as a “trading nation” – and yet we don’t see them sticking their
noses in waters a few miles from China’s shoreline. As for the US
being “a resident Pacific power” – this bizarre assertion really
underscores the core delusion that lies at the heart of our interventionist
foreign policy, now doesn’t it?

Yes, we do
sport a Pacific coastline, but to say the US claim extends five thousand
miles on the other side of the ocean is – literally – stretching
it. Obama, however, was merely taking his cues from Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, who opined in a speech leading up to the summit: “By virtue of our unique geography,
the United States is both an Atlantic and a Pacific power.”

There’s nothing “unique”
about our geography, only in Hillary’s understanding of it. Mexico,
too, is similarly situated: so is Canada. For some strange reason, however,
only the Americans imagine this accident of geography grants them hegemony over two oceans. Why do you suppose that is?

The US is a “resident Pacific
power” in the same sense the old Soviet Union was a “resident Caribbean
power” during the Cuban missile crisis – or in the same sense the
British, the Dutch, the French, and the Germans were Pacific powers
during the heyday of European colonialism. That is, the US is an
invading power, with tens of thousands of troops stationed in its
Pacific protectorates, such as South Korea, Japan, and the Pacific atolls and micro-nations which are little more than American lily-pads.

Hillary’s much-touted “Pacific
pivot” is just a reassertion of a very old theme in the interventionist
canon, one that evokes the early days of America’s emergence
on the world stage as an imperial power. After stealing Hawaii out from
under the Hawaiian royal family and defeating the Spanish at the turn
of the nineteenth century, the US found itself in possession of a Pacific
empire, but the natives had other ideas – and many of them still do.
In 1992, in response to rising opposition to the US presence, the last
American military base in the Philippines was closed.

Such ingratitude didn’t stop
Hillary from descending onto a US warship anchored in Manila Bay and referring to the South China Sea as the “West
Philippine Sea” – a name you won’t find on any map, except maybe those to be found in
the archives of the Sultanate
of Sulu. Boasting
of renewed military links to regional “partners,” such as Australia and Singapore, she hailed efforts to extend the American military presence
into the Indian Ocean.

All this grandstanding and
posing on the world stage, however, merely serves to underscore the
essential weakness of the American position, which is why the Chinese
didn’t even bother lashing back with their usual denunciations of
American “hegemonism.” Accurately averring that the Summit wasn’t
the best venue for actually settling the outstanding issues, and calmly
maintaining their own interest in keeping the sea lanes open to the free
flow of international trade, the Chinese played the role of the adults
in the room. As if to say: Let the kids have their fun – because
we’re holding the cash.

Making her way by broomstick
across our Pacific empire, Hillary stopped in Hawaii to proclaim that
this is going to be America’s “Pacific
century.” Referring
to the more than 50,000 US troops stationed in Japan and South Korea,
she declared that unspecified “new threats to navigation” and other
reasons “require that the United States pursue a more geographically
distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable force
posture.”

Notice how economics doesn’t
get a mention, and yet the reality is that this grandiose vision of
a revived Pacific empire is financially unsustainable. What’s more,
the Chinese know it: they, after all, make our policy of imperialism
possible by buying our debt. Without this source of income, the US government
would be unable to project military power much beyond Hawaii, if that
– and the Americans know it, too. Yet they smugly assume the Chinese
will always be there to bail them out because Beijing is just as dependent
on our markets as we are on their purchase of US Treasury bonds.

As in the last cold war, this
one operates in the context of mutual assured destruction: if Beijing
cuts off the cash flow, the Chinese economy goes down the tubes. If
we do more than merely encircle them, then they stop buying and our
economy goes into a tailspin. Yet this could very well happen even without
a war, due to the extreme brittleness of China’s one-party state.

The central government in Beijing
has always had a tenuous hold, at best, over the more distant reaches
of that vast country, and this tenuousness is even more in evidence
today. China’s post-Maoist economic reforms inevitably had a decentralizing
effect on the structures of power, and with the exhaustion of the old
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist faith, regional, ethnic, and religious movements
have filled the ideological void.

Confronted with these centrifugal
forces, the ruling elite has substituted Chinese nationalism for communist
dogma, touting pride in China’s rapid development in the course of
half a generation, the Chinese space program, and the country’s newly
won status as the global factory and financier. These achievements are
touted by the Beijing bureaucrats as proof of their fitness to rule,
and yet they don’t dare play the nationalist card too often, because
this same nationalistic spirit cringes at the sight of China being pushed
around on the world stage. Any hint that the Chinese leadership is going
to allow itself to be bullied by the Yankee running dog imperialists
will direct nationalist outrage at the ruling party: in which case,
the days of the Communist Party of China are numbered.

As they are in any event: no
ruling party can long survive without a coherent ideology, one that
inspires ordinary people as well as the elites. With the old Leninist
mythology largely discredited – although there is a growing neo-Maoist
movement in the country that exists largely underground – the CCP
is merely a husk, a living corpse that goes through the motions of life
through sheer force of habit. China’s zombie elite, however, is breaking
down into its constituent parts, with rival centers of power evolving
independently of the CCP and its structures. It’s only a matter of
time before the competition between these rival centers breaks out in
open conflict.

Add to this the fact that China
is too damned big: no central authority can possibly maintain control
over so many people living in such a vast and variegated land. It is
bound to come apart at the seams, and the only question – in my mind,
at least – is whether it is going to happen sooner rather than later.

This is where the “Pacific
pivot” comes into play. For if the US really means to try and encircle
China, to build a ring of military bases and no-Chinese-need-apply “free
trade zones” around a billion-plus people, then the economic strategy
of Beijing’s central planners is doomed. For the country’s
relative prosperity is totally dependent on exports, which are subsidized
and otherwise encouraged by the planners, and the success of such a
plan depends on China maintaining peaceful relations with its primary
market at all costs.

On the other hand, failure
to respond to American provocations endangers the CCP’s legitimacy
on the home front, and raises the specter of Chinese nationalism
running amok and sweeping the CCP from power. As the Americans tighten
the noose around their chief creditors’ collective neck, and venture
ever closer to the Chinese mainland, this scenario enters into the realm
of the possible. In which case, the old parable about the goose who laid golden eggs
comes to mind.

What are American policymakers
thinking? Can they really be intent on pursuing such a suicidal course,
even as their country teeters of the brink of bankruptcy?

While they may have some vague
idea that their policies will be somehow beneficial to the US, the
reality
is that this unrelenting aggression is simply a reflex. Our foreign
policy of global intervention has long since been put on automatic:
US officials simply do not know how to act in any other way except in
the grand imperial manner. Our power, in this sense, is an illusion –
like the allure of a woman of a certain age, who knows she’s
losing her charms and yet nevertheless is still playing the coquette.
The “Pacific pivot,” in short, is simply pathetic.

American foreign policy is
on automatic pilot for the simple reason that bothparties support global
interventionism, and so do the elites: the empire not only enriches
them, it also flatters them into thinking that they really do deserve
to rule the world. That’s why we here at Antiwar.com have been chipping
away at the bipartisan interventionist consensus, with some success
over the years.

Policymakers depend on public
ignorance and indifference, which allows them to get away with what
they’ve managed to get away with so far – a policy of perpetual
war. Antiwar.com is the antidote for the propagandistic poison that
they feed us through the “mainstream” media: it’s the biggest
weapon in our arsenal and the one we can’t afford to lose – but
we will lose it if we don’t make our fundraising goal this time around.

The US is now engaged in yet
another push to extend the frontiers of the Empire – but this time
there’s vocal opposition, and it’s growing, if not among the elites
then certainly among the people. We are making progress, but we can’t
continue to make gains without your support. You can’t have failed
to notice that we’re in the midst of our Winter Fundraising Campaign,
and I probably don’t have to remind you again that without your support
there will be no more Antiwar.com – but I will, anyway.

The War Party has billions
– heck, they have the entire US Treasury, and the Federal Reserve,
too. They can just print all the money they need, as they need it. (Never
mind that this destroys our incomes and our savings. Our wise rulers
don’t care about such minor details: after all, their incomes and
privileges will be preserved in any event.)

We don’t need to start printing
our own money – although that wouldn’t be a bad idea, come to think
of it! But we do need our readers and supporters to step up to
the plate and help us out. Yes, we’re in a bad financial situation,
all of us – but just think how much worse things will get if the War
Party gets its way and we’re plunged into another conflict, say in
Iran. Then you’ll see some real hard times – but it doesn’t have
to turn out that way. There is hope – and that hope is represented
by Antiwar.com. Our cause is just, and we have the people with us –
we just need to get through this fundraising drive in one piece.

Justin,two days ago Gallup published a poll about the question :"would you prefer the leading role in the zone of US or China".Out of Indonesia which prefers China by one vote the rest of countries including Vietnam ,Cambodia (countries which supported huge inhuman destruction and some years ago made by US)voted clear with a lot of votes for US leading.There is someone who could to explain this?

Low-level, low-life scumbags such as Obama and Hillary actually couldn't care less about "foreign policy". Other than to themselves, they have no convictions. They follow no ideology. They're simply amoral sociopaths whose only concern is their own pathological vanity. Clearly, somebody is telling these pliable monsters what to do.
The "people" on top however, do have an "ideology". They have convictions. They're organized. Most of us know who they are. And they cannot stop now even if they wanted to, because he who rides a tiger can never dismount.

Gee, Nelson… You sure are subtle about [The "people" on top]…claiming [(they) do have an "ideology". They have convictions. They're organized.] They… They… They…?? You say "Most of us know who they are." But you don't seem to mention their name… Why is that… Is it them, or is it us, or is it antiwar.com that precludes you naming those who you call out otherwise… O.K., O.K., I'll ASK…. Who do you refer to..?? ["The "people" on top however, do have an "ideology"] Can you tell us what that ideology is, it's common name and what it purports..?? I am not really good at guessing, so perhaps you can tell me.. Or at least provide a few more clues… Thank You very much..!!

Indeed the Pacific "pivot" is a pathetic dance step, where amidst all the bluster the US comes across as the weaker. Why does Obama say America does not fear China? That is what the weaker says to the stronger. That is what Mao said to the US in the 1950s. Obama is in fact pathetically challenging Mao, pathetically because Mao believed it but Obama does not appear to – otherwise he would not be involved in a pathetic, puny military buildup in Australia. So I agree with Justin on the pathos part.

On the other hand I think there is a subtle touch of imperial culture in Justin's approach when it comes to assessing China. For many millennia China was the premier economic power in the world – until the Qing dynasty, really a Mongolian dynasty, shut China off from the world. China is incorporating the lessons of the Enlightenment bit by bit and it will never again be humiliated by the colonizing powers of the West. All Chinese are agreed on that.

The Chinese are saying to the US, we are depriving you of an enemy just as Gorbachev did years ago. But the US is refusing to accept the offer. And China is wary of the US because it saw what the US did to Russia. One can expect China to keep extending the hand of peace, because China's interest is in development and for that they need peace. China's long history has been one of minding its own business as much as possible.
Finally China does not plan to be so heavily dependent on exports. Already it is turning away from that, and the new five year plan turns farther away from it, emphasizing the internal marked. China is interested in being part of the global market but it wants to become an exporter of high tech, high quality, well branded products – like Germany, its model for exports, not like the US.

Finally China offers the US peace. But the imperial elite in Washington and NYC want none of it. The only politician on the scene who is capable of testing this offer is Ron Paul. And unless the Libertarian, Conservative anti-interventionist movement gets its hands on the levers of power, we are in for some difficult times in the Western Pacific. I doubt that the "Left" can be a partner with China in this because of its love affair with 'humanitarian" imperialism. Until this victory of the Right occurs we have only the desire of American business to get access to the market of China (not the labor but the market) to stay the hand of our imperial elite. It is those businessmen who have a much more accurate view of China than the pols or punditocracy.

The relationship is doomed, I think. The way the US wants it ia a zero-sum game, and China won't accept this. China wants commerce, but the US wants military superiority and subservience. Therefore, expect the worst to come.

As far as China being in danger of breaking up. Sorry, Justin the USA with it's insanity of unlimited immigration will break up far before China. Other than that I agree with your article. By the way Hillary Clinton believe has gone insane.

The Han are 92% of the population and one of the most ethnocentric people in the world. They will keep their country, their country. They'll also keep Tibet and Xinjiang and not give it a thought. If I had to choose, I'd lay money on China being in one piece, rather then America at the end of this century.

As an Australian, let me say that I wish America would go bankrupt tomorrow. It is a curse that is driving the world towards a nuclear war. We do not need it in the Pacific. We do not need it and its military thugs anywhere.

There is nothing new about these imperialistic attitudes. In his short book about the Vietnam War, "The Bitter Heritage", published in 1967, Arthur Schlesinger compared U.S. bombing in Indochina to an "exercise of sovereignty". In other words, South Vietnam was U.S. territory. Wherever U.S. soldiers fly and land is U.S. territory.

The U.S. position of global dominance has no doubt diminished over the past 65 years. This was inevitable after the nations shattered by WWII eventually rebuilt and recovered, guaranteeing the U.S. would lose its unprecedented dominance of the globe economically. But Washington still has an always growing unprecedented comparative advantage in militarism, and it is more than willing to use its military power to maintain its hold on power. Hence, this Pacific posturing we're seeing from Washington.

It will be interesting to see how long this shot gun marriage between the U.S. and China lasts. It will end once China has enough demand domestically for its manufactured goods to not need to export the U.S. It will happen because the Chinese don't want to maintain the current status quo in its relations with the U.S.

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].